Will the WM3 ever be pardoned?

[Miranda!]

. . . otherwise I'll bet everyone involved hopes it goes away soon.

Don't forget that that is exactly what Burnett, Fogelman, Davis et al, all thought back in '94. Despite being fully aware of the cameras. And it did not 'go away' then and I do not think it will now.

Traffic on the Blackboard is pretty high at the moment and does not seem to be falling off. The opposite, in fact.

Meanwhile there are lots of media events in the pipelines:-

Release of Oscar Nominated Documentary on DVD.
Filming of Devil's Knot inspired movie with top line cast.
Launch of Echols' autobiography.
West Of Memphis going on general release world wide
Media frenzy at J Depp having bought film rights of Echol's biography
Casting news on the above
Premiere of 'Devil's Knot' Film - Maybe in Arkansas????
Then Oscar nomination time again - 'West of Memphis' maybe up for one??
Hell, even film version of Devil's Knot' might even be in with a chance!

Something tells me this is never going to 'go away' until it is resolved!

Then there is the minor matter of the reward for information leading to . . . being doubled!

It would seem that it is more a matter of whether matters come to a head in the short term or the long term!!

 

[Fishee]

Movies can generate intrigue but without new evidence there's nowhere to go. Public interest and media coverage cooled dramatically soon after their release because of it and will remain so until that changes.

The only talk I hear is on the boards.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Movies can generate intrigue but without new evidence there's nowhere to go. Public interest and media coverage cooled dramatically soon after their release because of it and will remain so until that changes.

The only talk I hear is on the boards.

That's why the boards were created. I know that we got a lot of new members on the Blackboard who became intrigued because of the release. They had not heard of the case before the release, and it prompted them to investigate.

As to new evidence, I believe that there is considerable new evidence presented in West of Memphis. As there is now a distributor (Sony Classic Pictures) for this documentary, hopefully it will be showing "at a theater near you" very soon.

Also, IMO the whole Alford plea situation caused people to investigate the case. That's why we got so many questions on the BB shortly after the release. These new members are sticking around, for the most part, and are ready to fight for exoneration.

 

[JBounds]

The whole truth of this matter is this;by taking the alford plea(which I do not blame them)it makes the exoneration more difficult. If they had fought longer Damien might not be around. It really was a catch 22 either way.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

No news for quite a while. Is evidence of innocence still on the way?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No news for quite a while. Is evidence of innocence still on the way?

Yes. Remember that there's no deadline for presenting new evidence. Exoneration has come many, many years later in several cases. Just because nothing new has been released doesn't mean that there is nothing new.

Pam Hicks just filed suit. ( http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/katv/documents/20120622_WM3_FOIA_Lawsuit.pdf ). The last civil suit in this case generated a mountain of new information. Maybe this one will, too. I'm willing to wait and see.

 

[Cappuccino]

No news for quite a while. Is evidence of innocence still on the way?

I'm still waiting for evidence of guilt. Lol.

Sorry, but the confessions of a 17 yr old with a below averag IQ, the retracted testimonies of a credit card thief and an LSD addicted jailhouse snitch, backed up by dodgy forensics and a whole pile of character assassination, have never really done it for me.

"There's no soul in there." Said by a prosecutor in the latter half of the 20th century, in the same country which put a man on the moon.

My God, Arkansas should be ashamed.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

My research convinces me they are guilty. They are free. They pled guilty. That plea should never have been allowed.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

My research convinces me they are guilty. They are free. They pled guilty. That plea should never have been allowed.

Lots of innocent people plead guilty "in [their] best interest." If you have listened to some of Damien's press conferences, he has talked about the fact that, for about $50, he could have been murdered while in prison. I wouldn't want to take that chance. That's one reason why he was so eager to get out of prison.

All Jessie ever wanted was to go home. He told the truth (initially) and said that he knew nothing about the crimes. Then, under intense pressure, he made up a story that he thought would let him go home. (Yes, he's that naive. Remember, he has an IQ in the low 70's.) It didn't.

Jason and Damien have always maintained their innocence. Jason put it well. I'll paraphrase. He said that they told the truth (that they were innocent) and they were locked up for life with Damien being under the threat of execution. They tell a lie (that they were guilty) and they're freed.

I agree that the plea shouldn't have been allowed because the three are innocent of the murders. However, Ellington didn't really want to go to trial. As he said in the December, 2011 GQ article, he would have had his a$$ handed to him. ( http://www.gq.com/news-politics/new...three-trial-story-sean-flynn-gq-december-2011 )

I've since heard Scott Ellington say that the original offer from the defense was to skip the evidentiary hearing and go straight to trial. He said that he was planning to use the hearing as a discovery tool. IMO, that's a little lazy. (I guess he was more interested in his Congressional campaign, although he denies it.) So, he turned down the initial offer but opened the door to the Alford Plea by telling the defense that, if all three would plead guilty, they could talk. So, technically the Alford Plea came from Ellingtion's suggestion.
( http://crittendencounty.wmctv.com/n...veals-new-details-west-memphis-3-negotiations )

There's a lot not known about this whole mess, but personally I know enough to be confident that the three are innocent, that the Alford Plea, as Ellington said in the second article I cited, was beneficial to both sides and that the supporter movement will not stop until the three have been fully exonerated and the State has investigated, tried and convicted the real killer. I know that everyone doesn't agree with me. For those who still believe the three are guilty, I simply say, "Stay tuned."

 

[AngelontheRiver]

I am staying tuned. If evidence I consider compelling comes to light I may change my mind. Only a fool wouldn't. I meant the judge shouldn't have allowed it. There should have been a new trial.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I am staying tuned. If evidence I consider compelling comes to light I may change my mind. Only a fool wouldn't. I meant the judge shouldn't have allowed it. There should have been a new trial.

An attorney explained it to me. I won't attempt to explain all the details, but the crux was that it was the judge's call to ascertain that the evidence - all evidence - was now more likely to lead to an acquittal. So, it wasn't unethical for him (Laser) to make a ruling that, to some, appeared to be contradictory.

That's why he could accept the Alford Plea, even though his comments led many to believe that he was convinced of the innocence of Damien, Jason and Jessie. An example was his comments praising supporters at the hearing on 08/19/2011. Remember, this deal was worked out by both sides. So, the judge had to take that into consideration.

IMO, the State benefited mightily from the Alford Plea because of the additional caveat that there would be no lawsuits for false imprisonment - regardless of what transpires in the future. So, even if the three are exonerated and the real killer is investigated, tried, convicted and imprisoned, the three cannot sue for false imprisonment. That's pretty big, IMO.

So, with Ellington's admission that the original defense proposal was to skip to the trial and eliminate the cost and time of the evidentiary hearing and that the State objected to that because of discovery issues, only time will tell what happens. With Pam's lawsuit against the wmpd and others, we can only wait and see if any of the new information that I'm convinced the defense has is made public in connection with the suit. I'm afraid it won't because Ellington is still playing the CYA game, or rather the "get the votes" game and won't want that information to be made public.

If Ellington loses in November and Pam's case hasn't been resolved by that time, I'm hoping that some of the information will then be made public. I just hope that the information is made public sometime - preferably sometime soon. Again, we have to play the waiting game.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

The judge appears very unprofessional. I think he abused his position. Star struck.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The judge appears very unprofessional. I think he abused his position. Star struck.

Sorry, but that is simply not true! Unlike in the Tim Masters case in CO, the Arkansas law won't allow a judge to simply rule that the evidence doesn't support the original conviction. Had the evidentiary hearing taken place, Judge Laser could have ordered a new trial or he could have ruled that no new trial was warranted. There were no other options. The Alford Plea allowed the State to save face and the three innocent men to go free. IMO, the judge's actions were extremely professional. There was no abuse of position, unlike Burnett refusing to recuse himself - repeatedly.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.

Had the judge ordered a new trial, the three would have been found not guilty. Ellington said as much in the December, 2011 GQ article. The State knew that and didn't want it to happen. Hence the Alford Pleas. It's unsatisfactory and satisfactory for both sides, but it's what happened.

 

[BD1]

Yes. Remember that there's no deadline for presenting new evidence. Exoneration has come many, many years later in several cases. Just because nothing new has been released doesn't mean that there is nothing new.

Pam Hicks just filed suit. ( http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/katv/documents/20120622_WM3_FOIA_Lawsuit.pdf ). The last civil suit in this case generated a mountain of new information. Maybe this one will, too. I'm willing to wait and see.

I read Pam's suit filing. Does anyone know the intention behind her wanting to examine the evidence? Or could guess?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I read Pam's suit filing. Does anyone know the intention behind her wanting to examine the evidence? Or could guess?

I've heard that it's for closure. I can understand that, I guess. She just wants to look at everything that they have in evidence. I support her.

 

[AngelontheRiver]

Had the judge ordered a new trial, the three would have been found not guilty. Ellington said as much in the December, 2011 GQ article. The State knew that and didn't want it to happen. Hence the Alford Pleas. It's unsatisfactory and satisfactory for both sides, but it's what happened.

The judge couldn't know that. No one could. Ellington is a coward.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

The judge couldn't know that. No one could. Ellington is a coward.

In an evidentiary hearing, the judge must decide if there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury would deliver a not guilty verdict. Maybe the judge can't be 100% sure, but he is supposed to believe a new trial would most likely result in an acquittal or the original verdict should be upheld. In the December, 2011 GQ article, Ellington admitted that the judge was going to order a new trial. Based on what Judge Laser said at the hearing on 8/19/2011, I feel that it is obvious that Ellington's suspicions were correct - that the judge would have ordered a new trial. In fact, I suspect that the judge had communicated his intentions to Ellington.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

The judge should have ordered a new trial or denied a new trial. Not accepted a plea from people already convicted and sentenced.

Any defendant can plead guilty and not have a trial, which is what the convicted did. This is what most convicted do if they get an appeal and a new trial is granted, they just plea guilty and the time they have already served is given credit to them.

Often they are sentenced by the jury and if there is no jury (which is true if they have no trial and plead guilty), then the sentencing would be left to a judge to decide.

I want to know where the proof is that they were going to come up with to 'prove them innocent'. What happened to that meme? I guess they got a little star struck too and forgot about all that stuff. But, they continue to encourage donor money in their behalf.